L. JAMES GIBSON, in an article called "Biblical Creation: Is there a better model?" (Ministry magazine May 2000) assesses various attempts to harmonize Scripture and science. His conclusion is interesting.

"I accept a six-day creation, not because science leaves me no alternative, but because that is my best understanding of what the Bible teaches.

"The crucial question is whether the Bible is more reliable on questions of origins, or whether our present scientific perceptions and understandings are more reliable. That decision is not, and indeed cannot be simply a scientific decision. Instead it is determined by one's choice of presuppositions. One might even call it "faith"."

This is a very honest answer. The debate about creation and evolution cannot be solved by scientific method, because that's not the point. The origin of the universe cannot be studied in a laboratory. It is a matter of history, not science. Creationists are willing enough to acknowledge that science is useful in the present, but they insist that it cannot reliably explain the past.

Answers In Genesis is a Christian organization that provides solid scientific evidence for a recent 6 day creation, but always with the understanding that it is God's revelation in the Bible, and not the evidence itself, that ultimately resolves the argument. This kind of approach has intellectual integrity and deserves to be taken seriously.

Biblical Creationism should be a foundation stone for a Christian subculture, not as a single issue, but as an example of a faith that accepts the Bible as the Word of God. The Christian subculture is in part a reaction against the intimidatory forces of the modern anti-God culture, which glorifies science and ridicules faith. Intimidatory? Yes, absolutely! Evolutionists often use highly emotive language to denounce creationism, and they typically refuse to acknowledge any possibility that the world may have been created. Their presuppositions simply won't allow it!

To get an idea of the respective honesty of the different sides of the creation/evolution debate consider this. Creationists are usually happy to allow for evolution to be presented as an alternative theory in schools, but evolutionists refuse to make the same concession. If they had their way, a belief that is now held by up to 50% of Americans would be forever banned from schools.

Creationism is also much more consistent intellectually, in that it explains the original existence of matter, a question which science will never be able to answer. Whence came the matter that is alleged to have exploded in the Big bang? Science has no answer, except to say that mater itself was eternal. Christians have a much better answer. An eternal God made the universe out of nothing.

Creationism should be part of the foundation for a Christian subculture in other ways as well. It provides the basis for the Christian moral code, whereas the survival of the fittest promotes selfishness, lawlessness and anarchy. Biblical creation (as described in Genesis) sets the pattern for marriage, work, religion and society. Because of the Genesis account, we can affirm right and wrong.

The point is, we do not be bullied into discarding God's revelation in favour of whatever scientific theory happens to be currently in vogue. The evolutionary theory that was taught thirty years ago has already been dramatically revised by people like Stephen Gould, and the theories will continue to change. But you will never see an apology in the national papers - "Sorry, folks, but we got it all wrong. Our theories have been replaced by better theories."